Headlines

Pace University Hires Karl R. Rábago to Lead the Law School’s Energy and Climate Center

amaury_laporte — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 22:14:23 +0000

On April 29, Pace University announced the hiring of Karl R. Rábago as Executive Director of the Pace Energy and Climate Center, an interdisciplinary law and policy think tank located at the Pace University School of Law in White Plains, NY. EESI's founder and chairman emeritus, Richard L. Ottinger, is the Law School's Dean Emeritus and the founder of the Pace Energy and Climate Center. According to Ottinger, “Karl Rábago brings a wealth of industry experience, academic credentials and government experience to the Center."

Rábago arrives at Pace Energy and Climate Center at a pivotal moment. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced last week that his administration intends to restructure the way utilities and energy companies sell electricity and interact with their customers in New York State.

Efforts are now underway to develop new policies to accelerate the deployment of clean energy generation technologies, give customers more control over their energy use, and reduce the emissions that are causing climate change. Pace University will be contributing to these efforts with its team of experts.

“I am thrilled to lead the Pace Energy and Climate Center and I look forward to working with Governor Cuomo and his outstanding energy team to build a better electric grid, modernize the way the Empire State consumes and produces energy, and protect the environment,” said Rábago.

Rábago served as vice president with Austin Energy, an EESI Associate and one of the leading electric utilities in the country for the promotion of energy efficiency and renewable energy; he was regulatory affairs director for AES, a Fortune 200 independent power producer operating in 21 countries; a Commissioner with the Texas Public Utilities Commission, where he dealt with exactly the same issues that the Center addresses; and he was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Utility Technologies in the U.S. Department of Energy. Rábago also taught environmental law at the prestigious University of Houston Law Center, and Constitutional Law, Military Law, and Environmental Law at the US Military Academy at West Point.

Rábago will join the Pace Energy and Climate Center on May 1.

For more information:

Pace Energy and Climate Center, Pace Law School.

Cowboy and Indian Alliance Travel to DC to Protest Keystone XL Pipeline

amaury_laporte — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:18:13 +0000

Credit: Jamie HennOn April 26, thousands of people descended on the National Mall in Washington D.C. in the latest demonstration against the Keystone XL pipeline. The march on Saturday was the last in a weeklong series of “Reject and Protest” events organized by the Cowboy Indian Alliance, a coalition of farmers, ranchers, and Native American leaders, along with a variety of environmental organizations, such as Bold Nebraska and 350.org. According to Bryan Brewer, Oglala Sioux Tribal President, “Keystone XL is a death warrant for our people . . . President Obama must reject this pipeline and protect our sacred land and water.”

The week of events was originally planned to coincide with the end of the State Department’s 90-day review period for the pipeline, which will result in a decision on whether or not the pipeline is in the national interest. However, on April 18, the State Department announced that it would be indefinitely extending the eight-agency review period due to an ongoing Nebraska Supreme Court case, which could affect the pipeline’s route. Although this has led some political analysts to believe that the protest will have little effect on the Keystone XL decision-making process, protestors and environmental organizations working against the pipeline have a different take. Art Tanderup, a Nebraska farmer who opposes the pipeline, commented, “No decision has been made, so we need to keep the pressure on so that the president and the public know this is important . . . we have to teach them what this really means. It doesn’t mean more energy for us.”

The Cowboy and Indian Alliance began their protest on Earth Day, April 22, with a march and opening ceremony. This was followed by several actions, including protesting at the Lincoln Memorial, risking arrest at the reflecting pond, marching in Georgetown, and holding a prayer ceremony outside of Secretary of State John Kerry’s home. Throughout the week, teepees were set up on the National Mall, and a hand-painted teepee was delivered to the National Museum of the American Indian to represent “the Cowboy and Indian Alliance’s hopes to protect land and clean water.”

Celebrities like singer Neil Young and actress Daryl Hannah joined protesters in the march. Young told the crowd he was there because “we need to end the age of fossil fuels and move on to something better.” Some progressive political figures tried to get involved, as well. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) provided her support from afar, saying, “I commend all of the ranchers, farmers and indigenous leaders from throughout our nation’s heartland who have come to Washington, D.C. this week. Although I cannot be with you in person, I want you to know that your presence sends a strong signal to Congress and the administration about the need to protect our communities and families from the impacts of dirty tar sands oil.”

According to Jane Kleeb, Executive Director of Bold Nebraska, “this is just the beginning. The Cowboy and Indian Alliance will ride again.”

Author: Jenifer Collins

Resources:

How Better Recycling Can Minimize Waste and Boost the Economy

amaury_laporte — Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:05:35 +0000

Speakers (l-r): Chaz Miller, Nelson Widell, Bradley Guy, and Walter Alcorn.

Video Recording
Audio Recording
Presentations
Highlights

Audio Recording

Audio recording of briefing and Q&A (mp3)

Tuesday, April 22, 2014——The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) held an Earth Day briefing about recycling at the local level, with an emphasis on four types of recycling: curbside, compost/organics, building deconstruction/reuse, and electronic waste. Members of the panel discussed the environmental and economic benefits of recycling and ways in which to increase recycling in our homes, businesses, and communities.

Speakers for this forum were:

Chaz Miller, Director of Policy/Advocacy, National Waste & Recycling Association

View Chaz Miller's presentation (video) Download Chaz Miller's slides

Nelson Widell, Co-Founder and Partner, Peninsula Compost Group , LLC

View Nelson Widell's presentation (video) Download Nelson Widell's slides

Bradley Guy, Associate Director, Center for Building Stewardship; Assistant Professor, School of Architecture and Planning, The Catholic University of America

View Bradley Guy's presentation (video) Download Bradley Guy's slides

Walter Alcorn, Vice-President of Environmental Affairs, Consumer Electronics Association

View Walter Alcorn's presentation (video) Download Walter Alcorn's slides

Recycling is an easy way for individuals to protect the Earth and help the economy. America's recycling industry accounted for more than one million jobs and over $236 billion in annual revenue in 2001, when the last extensive study was carried out. In 2010, the U.S. recycling industry sold 44 million metric tons of recycled materials valued at almost $30 billion to over 154 countries around the world. In addition to generating income, recycling saves money by reducing spending on landfills (which charge tipping fees and require significant amounts of land). Recycling also produces substantial energy savings of up to 87 percent for mixed plastics and 92 percent for aluminum cans. And, recycling has important environmental benefits: it limits the need to extract new resources and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. In 2012 alone, recycling prevented the equivalent of 168 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, which is comparable to taking 33 million passenger vehicles off the road.

In 2012, Americans recycled and composted about 34.5 percent of the 251 million tons of trash they generated over the year. About 11.7 percent of U.S. waste was used as fuel in power plants, and the rest (53.8 percent) found its way to landfills. While these numbers have improved significantly over the past 20 years, there remains much room for improvement. Most developed nations have higher recovery rates than the United States, with Austria leading the way at 63 percent. Denmark, which recycles about 42 percent of its solid waste, burns the remainder for energy and has closed all its landfills. Americans recycle only about 7 percent of their plastic and 21 percent of their glass and aluminum waste. Indeed, Americans throw away enough aluminum cans every month to completely rebuild the country’s commercial air fleet. The construction industry, with its outsized impact (50 percent of the solid waste stream in the United States is building waste) has the greatest potential for improvement.

Highlights

Chaz Miller, Director of Policy/Advocacy, National Waste & Recycling Association, said that recycling is above all about behavior change. In the United States, recycling is primarily carried out through household curbside programs. Seventy percent of U.S. households have access to curbside recycling.
Household, commercial and drop-off recyclables go to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). Such facilities are served by more than 15,000 trucks and employ 50,000 to 60,000 people in the United States.
The United States creates 250 million tons of garbage a year and recycles about 85 tons of it –30 percent of the waste stream. The total waste stream is currently 25 percent paper and about 25 percent food and yard waste.
The waste stream is constantly changing and has contracted since the 1990s by about 80 tons per year – this is known as “the evolving ton.” For the first time, the majority of our waste stream is not paper waste, due to the rise of digital alternatives. Plastic waste is up to 25 percent of total waste, even though plastics are becoming lighter-weight.
How can we improve recycling rates? According to Miller, we need further penetration of recycling programs in rural areas and in commercial and multi-family buildings.
What does the future hold? Probably more mandatory recycling laws and the advent of “dirty MRFs,” which pull recyclables straight out of the trash; more recycling of organics, food and yard waste; sustainable materials management; and further reduction of the waste stream.
Nelson Widell, Co-Founder and Partner, Peninsula Compost Group said compost is the original recycling. Mother Nature has recycled organic material since life first emerged, and mankind has long relied on composting as well, in order to improve soils.
The largest type of trash that is still relatively "untouched ground" when it comes to recycling is organics. The United States creates between 60 and 70 million tons of organic matter per year.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York are going to begin mandating the separation of organics, either for composting or to make biofuels using anaerobic digestion. One can compost a wide variety of organics, not just food waste but a lot of other materials as well, such as floral waste, cardboard...
The recycling of organic material can provide non-chemical fertilizers, reduce the production of landfill methane, reduce reliance on landfills, and promote reduction of greenhouse gases.
The Peninsula Compost Company, built 5 years ago in Wilmington, DE, receives organic material from New York City to Washington, D.C. It is the only such facility on the East Coast that is creating carbon credits.
Bradley Guy, Associate Director, Center for Building Stewardship; Assistant Professor, School of Architecture and Planning, the Catholic University of America, said recycling construction and demolition (C&D) waste creates 8 jobs per 1,000 tons of waste versus the 1.3 jobs per 1,000 tons created by conventional waste disposal.
Forty percent of solid waste in the United States is from construction and demolition, 170 to 200 million tons per year. C&D waste is different than household waste: it is mostly comprised of concrete, masonry, brick, wood, gypsum drywall, and asphalt shingles.
The U.S. recycles about 30 percent of C&D waste, not including road and bridge waste, which is already very efficiently recycled. Demolition is the main source of C&D waste at 53 percent. Only 9 percent of waste is from new construction, and renovation accounts for the remaining 38 percent. Relative to other western countries, the United States has neither the best nor the worst C&D industry recycling rate.
What we build, we should keep. There is inherent cultural, environmental and economic value embedded in our buildings. We need to promote the use of sustainable materials with lifecycle assessment tools and reuse or recycling to avoid additional the additional energy use needed to produce more materials. Currently, about 0.5 percent of construction waste is reused.
Deconstruction is building in reverse. It is the careful disassembly and removal of buildings safely, while maximizing reuse and recycling. Deconstruction, properly carried out, is environmentally responsible, preserves the cultural value of buildings, and reduces the use of additional natural resources. It is more difficult and time-consuming than demolition, but companies are getting better at it.
Some states and cities have aggressive C&D waste recycling and reuse efforts. Massachusetts banned 5 major types of construction waste from landfills in 2006 and has reached an 80 percent construction diversion rate. Seattle has a goal of 70 percent diversion by 2020 and requires 20 percent reuse in new construction. Washington D.C.’s goal is 80 percent diversion by 2032.
Walter Alcorn, Vice-President of Environmental Affairs, Consumer Electronics Association, introduced the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), which represents retailers and manufacturers of electronic devices such as computers, televisions, tablets, and smartphones. In 2011, CEA announced a commitment by its member companies to recycle a billion pounds of electronics by 2016 (the "Billion Pound Challenge").
In a report (www.ce.org/ecycle) published on April 21, 2014, the CEA announced that 620 million pounds of electronics had been recycled in 2013, up from 300 million pounds in 2010. In addition, more than 99 percent of these electronics is now being recycled in third party certified facilities.
There is significant resource recovery potential in the electronics industry; however, these products evolve quickly and become obsolete, which creates issues from a recycling and materials management standpoint.
A national approach to e-waste is needed according to Alcorn. Right now, there are 25 different state e-waste laws.
Businesses need to incorporate recycling into their business models. Best Buy is one example of a company that has integrated recycling into its business plan. One can drop off old electronics for recycling at any Best Buy store, for free.
Recycling needs to be convenient for consumers. We need to make e-recycling as easy as purchasing electronics.
He noted that the trend is towards smaller electronics and stronger markets for trade-in, refurbishment and recycling, but there are significant challenges remaining. Consumer awareness needs to increase, and we are also dealing with some materials that there is no market for – such as cathode ray tubes, found in old TVs.
Recycler third party certification is now nearly ubiquitous among CEA members, making it much easier to verify that recycling is being done responsibly and honestly.

Original briefing notice

For more information, contact Ellen Vaughan at evaughan [at] eesi.org or (202) 662-1893.
Please click here to subscribe to our e-mail list for event notices or newsletters.
We will not sell, trade, or share your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Innovative Energy Efficiency Financing Programs Sprouting Across U.S.

amaury_laporte — Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:35:36 +0000

A study by Deutsche Bank and the Rockefeller Foundation estimates that $279 billion could be invested in energy efficiency retrofitting in the United States. This investment would yield more than $1 trillion in energy savings over 10 years and could create more than 3.3 million job years across the country. These energy savings could reduce U.S. emissions by nearly 10 percent. The United States is currently nowhere near these investment levels. However, innovative energy efficiency financing programs are sprouting up all around the country.

In January, the clean energy finance company Kilowatt Financial announced a partnership with Citibank that will bring an additional $100 million to Kilowatt Financial’s lending power. This type of partnership is a first for Citibank, which is one of the top financiers of the coal industry. Kilowatt Financial has already helped more than 20,000 households finance energy efficiency improvements to save an estimated 57 million kilowatt hours of electricity, equal to 39,000 metric tons of carbon emissions.

In March 2013, the Pennsylvania Department of the Treasury announced a $31.3 million sale of nearly 4,700 Keystone HELP loans to Fox Chase Bank, WSFS Bank, and National Penn Bank. The Keystone Home Energy Loan Program (HELP), which was created by the Pennsylvania Treasury and AFC First Financial Corporation, provides loans for high efficiency furnaces and boilers, geothermal heating and cooling systems, insulation installations, and door and window replacements. To date, the program has financed $63 million in home improvements, saving $2.3 million a year in utility bills.

AFC First, an energy efficiency financing company, announced a partnership in February with several Connecticut utilities to form the Energize Connecticut Heating Loan Program, an on-bill financing program. Participating utilities include the Connecticut Light and Power Company and the United Illuminating Company. The program allows loans of up to $15,000 per home for heating equipment upgrades that meet Energy Star standards. With on-bill financing, loan payments for efficiency retrofits are repaid through the consumer’s utility bill. The intended result is that the energy savings are greater than the loan repayments, providing positive cash flow.

For the past several years, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) has worked with South Carolina rural electric cooperatives to create the Help My House (HMH) program, which also used on-bill financing. The HMH program provided low-cost loans to 125 households to finance energy efficiency upgrades to lower their electricity use and save money. Households were able to cut electricity use by an average of 34 percent and save $288 per year after loan payments. Each household saved nearly 11,000 kilowatt hours per year, equal to 7.5 metric tons of carbon emissions, or 937.5 metric tons for all participants.

Author: Ivana Andrade

Sources:

U.N. Report States Climate Mitigation Must Start Now

amaury_laporte — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:54:54 +0000

On April 13, Working Group III (WGIII) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its report on what can be done to mitigate climate change across sectors. Four years of research and analysis culminated in a week-long meeting in Berlin, during which scientists from developing and industrialized nations discussed mitigation strategies and goals. The 2,000-page report avoids recommending specific policy goals, but instead focuses on providing policy options for different levels of government (nations, regions, cities…) and economic sectors. This publication is the third and final part of the IPCC's fifth assessment report (AR5), an update to the fourth assessment report published in 2007. The Working Group I report found that climate change is unequivocal, and is caused by humans, while the Working Group II report detailed the risks of climate change to society.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have risen faster in the last 10 years than they have in the preceding 30-year period. Between 1970 and 2000, GHG emissions rose at an annual rate of 1.3 percent; now, they are rising at a rate of 2.2 percent per year, largely due to an increase in coal usage from developing countries. The scientists contributing to the IPCC argue that clean technologies will need to overtake traditional fossil fuels in order to address climate change. With urban populations expected to triple by 2030, energy efficiency, smart infrastructure, and retrofits to buildings will all need to be implemented as part of a global mitigation strategy.

Also discussed in the WGIII report are some risky technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which some scientists believe could help with mitigation. But the authors wrote that these are not yet viable options and could potentially be a “distraction” from more feasible renewable energy options, such as wind and solar.

Scientists are still optimistic that the world can stay below a global rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to pre-Industrial levels. However, to stay below this threshold—which scientists have established as the “danger-threshold”—business-as-usual scenarios of fossil fuel burning will not be able to continue. Fossil fuel burning would need to peak in the near future and then fall to between 40 to 70 percent of 2010 levels by 2050 and then continue falling until 2100, in order to stay within a 2-degree Celsius rise.

Those who say action against climate change will drastically harm the economy are mistaken, according to this report. The IPCC reports that the most ambitious mitigation plan would only reduce growth by about 0.06 percentage points per year. This doesn’t even take into account the co-benefits of climate action, such as public health and increased energy efficiency savings, which could further reduce the impact to the global economy and perhaps even lead to a net benefit.

Two hundred eighty-five authors from 58 countries, along with 900 peer reviewers, contributed to this report. Rajendra K. Pachauri, one of the co-chairmen of WGIII, argued for the need for cooperation among countries to limit global temperature rise, saying that “what comes out very clear from this report is that the high-speed mitigation train needs to leave the station soon, and all of global society needs to get on board.” U.S. researchers, including Leon Clarke, senior research economist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and one of the report's lead authors, seconded this feeling with the sentiment that, “the longer we wait, the harder this is going to get.”

Author: Jenifer Collins

Resources:

"Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change," IPCC Working Group III
IPCC Working Group III
"Step up action to curb global warming, or risks rise: U.N.," Reuters
"U.N. climate panel: Governments must do more in face of dire global-warming threats," Washington Post

The Silicon Prairie: Wind Energy in Iowa Fueling Investment

amaury_laporte — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 21:18:06 +0000

Rep. Bruce Braley (IA) sitting on a wind turbine in IowaWhat do Google, Facebook and Microsoft Corp. all have in common?

They’ve all invested in building large data centers in Iowa, in order to harness the state’s vast wind energy resources, which currently provide over 25 percent of its electricity needs. Google has spent $1.5 billion in Council Bluffs, Iowa; Facebook is putting down $300 million in Altoona, which is expected to increase to $1 billion; and Microsoft has invested almost $900 million in West Des Moines. West Des Moines is expecting another project with a taxable value of $255 million and the creation of 84 jobs, from a company that has not yet been revealed.

“The magnitude of those investments is unprecedented,” commented John Boyd Jr., a consultant at Boyd Co., which helps companies locate data centers. “The only state that mirrors that investment is Washington state.” Dell, Yahoo, Microsoft and other companies have invested in Washington to take advantage of its renewable energy resource, hydroelectric power.

Former Iowa Governor Chet Culver commented in 2009 that the idea behind Iowa’s investments in renewable energy – over 25 projects – was to spark further investment in the state. “Our dream is to create the silicon prairie of the Midwest here in Iowa,” Culver remarked. “[Renewable energy] allows Iowa to get on the national and international map.”

Iowa has the highest share of any state for wind generation in its electricity mix, at 27.4 percent in 2013—with South Dakota close behind at 26 percent. Only Texas has more installed installed more Megawatt hours of wind energy than Iowa, although wind is not as large a percentage of its electricity mix. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released findings in 2013 showing land-based wind energy is the second most affordable form of new electricity generation, with only natural gas coming in at a cheaper price.

Author: Laura Small

For more information see:

"Facebook, Google praised for ‘going green’ in Iowa," Des Moines Register
"Tech giants look to Iowa for data centers," USA Today
"American wind power reaches major power generation milestones in 2013," American Wind Energy Association
"Governor visits Iowa State as part of renewable energy tour," Iowa State University
"Clicking Clean: How Companies are Creating the Green Internet," Greenpeace Report

Drier and Hotter: Managing Climate Risks in the Southwest

amaury_laporte — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 22:03:10 +0000

Speakers (l-r): Eleanor Bastian, Patrick Gonzalez, Chris Treese, Margaret Bowman, and Louis Blumberg.

Video Recording
Audio Recording
Presentations
Highlights

Audio Recording

Audio recording of briefing and Q&A (mp3)

Wednesday, April 2, 2014——The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) held a briefing examining the current and projected impacts of climate change in the Southwest and regional efforts to manage these risks. The Southwest is already the driest and hottest region in the United States, and California is in the midst of a historic drought. The draft Third National Climate Assessment (NCA) – the final version is expected soon – projects that the region’s climate may become even more severe. These changes are having substantial adverse effects on the regional economy and quality of life, forcing local leaders to develop creative solutions to combat drought and other extreme conditions. How can the Southwest best address current impacts while also building climate resiliency to manage risk and foster long-term prosperity?

Speakers for this forum were:

Eleanor Bastian, Legislative Director, Office of Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO)

View Eleanor Bastian's presentation (video)

Patrick Gonzalez, Ph.D., Climate Change Scientist, U.S. National Park Service

View Patrick Gonzalez's presentation (video) Download Dr. Patrick Gonzalez's slides

Chris Treese, External Affairs Manager, Colorado River District

View Chris Treese's presentation (video) Download Chris Treese's slides

Margaret Bowman, Acting Environment Program Director, Walton Family Foundation

View Margaret Bowman's presentation (video) Download a summary of Margaret Bowman's remarks

Louis Blumberg, Director, California Climate Change Program, The Nature Conservancy

View Louis Blumberg's presentation (video) Download Louis Blumberg's slides

The effects of climate change already are being felt in the Southwest, which the NCA defines as Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. Snowpack levels have fallen over the past 50 years, limiting a key source of the region’s water supply. From 2001-2010, the streamflow of the region’s major rivers was 5-37 percent lower than the 20th century average. Prolonged droughts and insect infestations have made forest ecosystems more vulnerable to wildfires and disease. Rising sea levels have increased flooding and erosion in California's coastal areas.

Climate change is expected to disrupt the livelihoods of many in the Southwest. Today, 56 million Americans live in the region. By 2050, its population is projected to rise to 94 million, putting additional strain on water resources. Water scarcity threatens the region's irrigation-dependent agriculture sector, which accounts for 79 percent of regional water withdrawals. The Southwest is home to more than half of the nation's high-value specialty crops, such as vegetables, fruits, and nuts. Because these crops are particularly vulnerable to weather extremes, climate change will likely reduce yields.

Many state and local authorities in the Southwest are moving forward with climate adaptation initiatives. California released a draft revision of its adaptation strategy in December 2013. New Mexico’s Active Water Resource Management program, which gives the state the tools to administer scarce water resources in cases of drought, has been cited as a model for other states. Salt Lake City, Tucson and Flagstaff formed the Western Adaptation Alliance in 2010 to share resources and best practices to improve local resiliency. The Alliance has grown to include Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and others.

Highlights

Eleanor Bastian, Legislative Director, Office of Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), expressed concern that "the impacts of climate change in the Southwest pose a very serious challenge."
Dr. Patrick Gonzalez, Climate Change Scientist, U.S. National Park Service, described the current impacts of climate change already visible in the Southwest. Winter snowfall has dropped by about 7 percent since 1950, tree mortality has doubled, vegetation is shifting upslope in certain areas, and sea level has risen. Climate change is the single largest factor explaining the increase in wildfires throughout the 20th century. And, climate change has contributed to the most extensive bark beetle outbreak in 125 years.
Future climate change will be more severe. Temperatures will likely increase by 2 to 4 degrees Celsius, while persistent drought will take hold over a large area of the region (with some areas seeing more rainfall).
The ecological impacts of these changes will include an increase in wildfires and dieback of woodlands and forests.
Chris Treese, External Affairs Manager, Colorado River District, discussed some of the challenges facing the Colorado River Basin. For example, 90 percent of the water is in the Upper Basin, but 90 percent of the population lives in the Lower Basin. The Greater Los Angeles Basin relies on the Colorado River Basin for most of its water.
In the future, the region’s irrigated agricultural areas will be heavily displaced due to a growing population, while the supply of water will fall 9 percent (from 15 to 13.6 million acre-feet). A recent study found that imbalances between water and population will grow if the projected impacts of climate change are realized.
A combination of solutions will need to be implemented, as current water demands already outstrip supply. The current Basin-wide gap is covered by finite reserves, and significant actions are required to meet the region’s water needs.
Margaret Bowman, Acting Environment Program Director, Walton Family Foundation, focused on how to respond to the water issues facing the Southwest. She said that business-as-usual is not sustainable, but that this crisis is solvable.
The United States needs to invest in a few critical solutions, including: upgrade water-saving and irrigation techniques for agriculture; begin “water banking,” a market-based approach that allows farmers and ranchers to bank their water voluntarily; use water as efficiently as possible in cities; and improve efforts to recycle wastewater and storm water. Implementing these solutions might possibly be enough to fill the current water gap in the Colorado River Basin.
Urban water efficiency is the least expensive and fastest option to save water. Cities could gain one million acre feet of additional water savings through improved landscaping techniques, municipal water audits, and other methods.
Louis Blumberg, Director of the California Climate Change Program, The Nature Conservancy, discussed three themes: water issues in California, national infrastructure to reduce climate risk, and California’s current resilience efforts. According to Blumberg, the current response by the state is not enough: "it’s like the state went out to buy a fire extinguisher while the fire was burning."
Nature can be a powerful tool to address these threats, and therefore it is important to restore natural systems to fight climate change. This can include rehabilitating degraded forests and meadows, ecologically-based thinning to reduce the impact of wildfires, reconnecting rivers to natural floodplains, and restoring marshes and wetlands.
The Nature Conservancy in California is promoting ways to reduce climate risk via natural infrastructure. Natural infrastructure has many direct and indirect benefits, including water savings, wildlife habitat, recreation, higher property values, and emissions reductions.

For more information, contact John-Michael Cross at jmcross [at] eesi.org or (202) 662-1883.
Please click here to subscribe to our e-mail list for event notices or newsletters.
We will not sell, trade, or share your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Original briefing notice

Converting Vehicle Fleets to Alternative Fuels

amaury_laporte — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:34:14 +0000

Speakers (l-r): Richard Battersby, Claude T. Masters, Jeffery L. Jeter, and Steven W. Saltzgiver.

Video Recording
Audio Recording
Presentations
Highlights

Audio Recording

Audio recording of briefing and Q&A (mp3)

Tuesday, April 1, 2014——The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) held a briefing, hosted in coordination with Transportation Energy Partners (TEP) and NAFA Fleet Management Association, about the strides public and private sector vehicle fleet managers in nearly every state are making in converting to alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels, electricity, natural gas, propane). This was a chance to learn first-hand about why they are converting their fleets, the challenges they face, and the importance of federal and state incentives in overcoming these challenges.

The United States has reduced its oil imports, but still spends $1 billion per day on imported oil. Transportation is responsible for more than 70 percent of all U.S. oil use and over 30 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. The number of alternative fuel vehicles in the United States has grown to 1.2 million, but this is less than one-half of one percent of the nation’s fleet. Through the application of innovative technology, American industry has demonstrated that the United States has the opportunity to become a world leader in alternative fuels and related industries, with appropriate Federal policies.

Speakers for this forum were:

Richard Battersby, Executive Director, East Bay Clean Cities Coalition, California, and Board Member of Transportation Energy Partners

View Richard Battersby's presentation (video) Download Richard Battersby's slides

Claude T. Masters, Manager of Acquisition and Fuel, Florida Power & Light, and President of NAFA Fleet Management Association

View Claude T. Masters's presentation (video) Download Claude T. Masters's slides

Jeffery L. Jeter, Fleet Manager, Chesterfield County, Virginia

View Jeffery L. Jeter's presentation (video) Download Jeffery L. Jeter's slides

Steven W. Saltzgiver, Vice President of Fleet Management, Republic Services Inc.

View Steven W. Saltzgiver's presentation (video) Download Steven W. Saltzgiver's slides

View Question & Answer session (video)

Highlights

Richard Battersby, Executive Director, East Bay Clean Cities Coalition (California); Board Member, Transportation Energy Partners; and Director of Fleet Services, University of California-Davis, said using alternative fuels provides huge economic benefits, including the reduction of oil imports: Battersby said the United States spends $1 billion per day on imported oil.
Battersby explained that Transportation Energy Partners is a nonprofit that provides clean vehicle policy support to the Clean Cities Coalition. The Clean Cities program was created by the Department of Energy to advance the energy, economic, and environmental security of the United States by supporting local actions that reduce petroleum use in transportation. There are over 100 Clean City Coalitions nationwide, bringing together nearly 18,000 stakeholders. Their actions have saved more than 5 billion gallons of petroleum since 1993.
Strategies used to reduce petroleum usage include reducing the amount of vehicle idling, fuel economy improvements, and new technologies. But alternative fuels are the biggest contributor, representing 72.5 percent of the petroleum saved. Natural gas is the leading alternative fuel (at 60.9 percent), followed by biodiesel (17 percent), ethanol E85 (10.9 percent), propane (7.8 percent) and electricity (3.4 percent).
Battersby believes that federal research and development in partnership with private firms is critical to developing new technologies. He argued that federal assistance is necessary to deploy new technologies because it takes a great deal of time for technologies to evolve from the lab and take hold in the marketplace.
Claude T. Masters, Manager of Acquisition and Fuel, Florida Power & Light (FPL), and President, NAFA Fleet Management Association, briefly introduced NAFA Fleet Management Association, a not-for-profit membership organization serving the needs of automotive fleet managers. NAFA has over 3,200 members, with an average fleet size of 2,100 vehicles.
Masters focused on the extensive experience of the FPL Fleet Alternative Fuel Program with electric hybrids and biodiesel. FPL runs one of the largest green utility fleets in the nation.
FPL’s light-duty fleet consists of 497 hybrid-electric vehicles (85 percent of its light-duty fleet), 35 plug-in electric vehicles (6 percent), and 28 battery-electric vehicles (5 percent). FPL’s hybrid electric fleet has been ranked as the 8th largest in the nation by Green Fleet Magazine in the May/June 2013 issue.
In all, FPL's 560 hybrid/electric vehicles represent 23 percent of the company’s car and truck fleet. This is slated to increase to 28 percent in 2014.
FPL has 1,700 trucks that consume 2 million gallons of B20 biodiesel annually. FPL buys and mixes the biofuel independently. Masters emphasized that FPL is one of the largest users of biodiesel in the Southeast, which has reduced its carbon footprint by 5,000 metric tons of CO2.
Jeffery L. Jeter, Fleet Manager, Chesterfield County, Virginia, spoke about the economic and environmental benefits of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), a.k.a. propane or autogas. Jeter said that LPG improves air quality and combats climate change, in addition to effectively competing with gasoline prices. For Chesterfield County, operating an LPG vehicle costs on average $3,032 less than operating a gasoline vehicle (over a year).
Jeter spotlighted the low-cost infrastructure and quick installation of LPG stations, as well as the easy vehicle adaptations. He said an LPG fueling station could be installed within 30-90 days. In contrast, setting up a natural gas station would take 6 months to a year.
Jeter named five ways in which the development of LPG could be aided by policymakers:
1. Return of the tax incentive ($0.50 per gallon purchased).
2. Grant funding.
3. Funding for adding fueling infrastructures.
4. Help Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) produce a bi-fuel vehicle (autogas and gasoline).
5. Reduction of red-tape to facilitate local government use of alternative fuels.
Steven W. Saltzgiver, Vice President of Fleet Management, Republic Services Inc., said natural gas vehicles (NGVs) are cleaner than gasoline-powered ones, can be powered with abundant natural gas sources in North America, and are cheaper because natural gas costs are currently lower than diesel fuel costs.
The solid waste industry is an ideal market for NGVs: it's large (2 billion gallons a year), has high fuel consumption per vehicle, and the vehicles return to a centralized base where they can be refueled (minimizing the need for infrastructure investments).
Saltzgiver highlighted Republic Services’ experience with operating NGVs since 1995. Republic Services has over 1,800 natural gas trucks and a total of 31 fueling stations nationwide (including 10 built in 2013 alone).
Saltzgiver explained that NGVs benefit the environment because they emit 85 percent less NOx emissions (NOx is one of the contributors to smog) and 23 percent less greenhouse gas emissions. He emphasized that NGVs also have the advantage of running more quietly and not emanating foul odors, which are huge perks for customers as well. Last but not least, they can be more economical to run than diesel or gasoline vehicles.
In addition to using natural gas, fleet vehicles can also lower their fuel consumption and emissions by better training drivers, optimizing routes, and by recovering vehicles' kinetic energy during braking and decelerating. Hybrid-electric and fully electric vehicles also have potential, provided battery weight issues can be addressed.
Not all fleets will be good candidates for NGV. Location is critically important (being near a natural gas distribution line), as is a progressive regulatory environment.
During the question and answer session, the discussion focused on the short term future of alternative fuels including landfill gas and vehicle electrification. Battersby noted the Altamont landfill (East Bay), where 13,000 gallons of biogas fuel is produced per day from trash brought in by trash trucks, which then refuel using the biogas produced by the landfill. Saltzgiver stated that his company has 70 landfill-to-gas projects underway, and has begun a partnership to test battery technologies, where the biggest issue is being able to add the weight of the battery without significantly reducing the truck’s trash weight capacity.
An insightful question from Senator Heitkamp’s office generated a discussion about the applicability of natural gas–electric hybrid technology to the trash industry due to the high rate of vehicle stops and starts. Masters called on manufacturers (OEMs) to incorporate more stop/start (regenerative braking) technology on heavy-duty vehicles. Doing so would increase fuel efficiency by 20-30 percent and significantly reduce the frequency of brake pad replacements, which cost $5,000-$10,000 each. Saltzgiver stated that that alone would be a “big win,” as some trucks currently require brake replacements every 8 months.
Battersby stated that fuel cells are an attractive technology too, particularly in California, where the number of hydrogen refueling stations is expected to increase from the current 20 to 61 by 2015. The first light-duty fuel cell vehicle releases are expected in 2015, but are oriented to non-fleet light duty vehicles.
Battersby also plugged the useful tools on DOE EERE’s Alternative Fuels Data Center web site.

For more information, contact Paul Haven at phaven [at] eesi.org or (202) 662-1895.
Please click here to subscribe to our e-mail list for event notices or newsletters.
We will not sell, trade, or share your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Original briefing notice

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Releases Second Report in Series

amaury_laporte — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 18:45:21 +0000

On March 30, Working Group II (WGII) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its report on climate change’s risk to human society. The Summary for Policymakers of WGII encompassed three years of labor, the work of 309 climate scientists and close to 2,000 experts from across the globe, as well as 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers, all compiled into one, succinct report. The report aims to evaluate “how patterns of risks and potential benefits are shifting due to climate change . . . how impacts and risks related to climate change can be reduced and managed through adaptation and mitigation . . . [and] needs, options, opportunities, constraints, resilience, limits, and other aspects associated with adaptation.”

As the scientific intergovernmental body responsible for publishing information relevant to the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the IPCC's reports are considered the global benchmark in climate change understanding. Last September, Working Group I (WRI) of the IPCC met in Stockholm and released the group’s fifth Assessment Report (AR5). WRI, which deals with the physical science of climate change, detailed the changes to the climate that can be expected from the likely 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) rise in temperature by the end of the century. These changes include increased ice sheet melting, sea level rise, droughts, heat waves, and changes to precipitation patterns. [See EESI's article on last IPCC release]

The WGII report centered on the fact that climate risks are happening now and future impacts are more immediate than once believed. According to Stanford University Professor Chris Field, co-chair of WGII, “the climate changes that have already occurred have been widespread and have really had consequences. It is not the case that climate change is a thing of the future.”

Whereas the WGII report of 2007 contained less certainty in the area of food and water availability due to climate change, this update states that global wheat and maize production are already seeing reductions due to heat stress. All warming scenarios show the global stock of fish declining in the next hundred years and many species are especially at risk due to their sensitivity to ocean acidification. Shrinking glaciers will reduce vital water supply this century, disproportionately impacting the rural poor.

The scientists also found that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions will impact human health and well-being. Under-nutrition and water-borne diseases are expected to increase due to a lack of access to food and clean water. Climate change could also indirectly increase the risk of violent conflicts and displacement of people by exacerbating already stressed environments. A report by the Pentagon, released earlier in March, further supported this claim by stating, “the pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world . . . that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions.”

The report also states that a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius would cause losses in global income of between 0.2 to 2 percent, with a higher likelihood of losses at the 2 percent end of the range. The report notes that economic losses from climate change are difficult to asses and could actually be much higher.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry summed up the report's gist when he said, “Read this report and you can’t deny the reality: unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy . . . let’s make our political system wake up and let’s make the world respond.”

Authors: Jenifer Collins

Sources:

Summary for Policymakers," Working Group II (WGII) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
"U.N. climate panel: Governments, businesses need to take action now against growing risks," Washington Post
"World Is Ill-Prepared for Global Warming Impacts, UN Says," Bloomberg
"IPCC report paints bleak picture of war, famine and pestilence: ‘Climate change is happening and no one in the world is immune’," The Independent
"Press Statement: Release of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group 2 Report," Secretary of State John Kerry

The 2015 Budget: Impacts on Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

amaury_laporte — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:21:17 +0000

Speakers (l-r): Ashley Johnson, Jason Walsh, Fred Sissine, and Scott Sklar.

Video Recording
Audio Recording
Presentations
Highlights
Issue Brief

Audio Recording

Audio recording of briefing and Q&A (mp3)

Friday, March 28, 2014——The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) – in partnership with the House Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus – held a briefing on the energy efficiency and renewable energy implications of the fiscal year (FY) 2015 budget proposal released by President Obama on March 4. The $3.9 trillion budget proposal reflects the Administration's "all of the above" energy strategy as well as its focus on climate change, following the unveiling of the President's Climate Action Plan in June 2013.

Speakers from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) gave an overview of the budget requests for various clean energy programs, explained budget priorities, and provided context on how these priorities and trends compared to prior years.

Speakers for this forum were:

Ashley Johnson, Legislative Assistant, Office of Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA)

View Ashley Johnson's presentation (video)

Jason Walsh, Senior Advisor, Dept. of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

View Jason Walsh's presentation (video) Download Jason Walsh's slides

Fred Sissine, Energy Policy Specialist, Congressional Research Service (CRS)

View Fred Sissine's presentation (video) Download Fred Sissine's slides

Scott Sklar, Chair, Steering Committee, Sustainable Energy Coalition; President, Stella Group, Ltd.

View Scott Sklar's presentation (video) Download Scott Sklar's slides

The proposed 2015 budget increases the Department of Energy’s (DOE) funding by 2.6 percent over 2014 enacted levels, but reduces the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) by 3.8 percent.

The President's budget includes a $1 billion Climate Fund and a $56 billion infrastructure package that the Administration says would be used to "help our communities prepare for the effects of climate change." Related initiatives seek to make the electricity grid more resilient, not only to disasters but to attacks as well. Also of note is a requested increase of 26 percent over 2014 appropriations for the Department of Transportation. The increase is intended to go some ways to address the $86 billion maintenance backlog and help fund more energy efficient modes of transportation.

The President’s budget also calls for the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, while proposing to make tax credits for renewable energy production permanent.

Highlights

The FY2015 total budget request for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is $29.116 billion, up 3 percent ($716 million) from FY2014.
Jason Walsh, Senior Advisor, Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), began by listing some of EERE's recent accomplishments, including its SuperTruck program (which exceeded its goal to develop trucks that are 50 percent more efficient than current models), its successful push to reduce battery costs, two new wind turbine testing facilities, and the finalization of new efficiency standards for more than 30 household and commercial products.
An independent audit found that between 1976 and 2008, the third of EERE's portfolio that could be evaluated had a return on investment of 24 to 1 ($388 billion versus $15 million).
Walsh stressed that the United States trailed China’s investments in clean energy in 2013.
According to Walsh, EERE's budget request for FY2015 is $2.317 billion, a 22 percent increase from FY2014 appropriations (as enacted). Within the proposed EERE budget, manufacturing and vehicle technology programs would see the largest increases, while program management and strategic programs would see small decreases.
Appropriations within EERE are grouped into four major themes:
1. Sustainable transportation, with $705 million (a 15 percent increase from FY2014) for vehicle, bioenergy, and hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.
2. Renewable electricity, with $521 million (a 16 percent increase from FY2014) for solar, wind, water, and geothermal technologies.
3. Energy savings, with $858 million (a 39 percent increase from FY2014) for advanced manufacturing, building technologies, weatherization and intergovernmental activities, and the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP).
4. Corporate support programs, with $238 million (a 3 percent increase from FY2014).
The DOE’s largest budget increase is for the Advanced Manufacturing Research and Development Facilities program, which supports the creation of at least one new Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institute, and supports two existing institutes. This program maintains investment in the Critical Materials Hub and Manufacturing Demonstration Facility.
The DOE’s Vehicle Technologies program is placing more emphasis on lightweight vehicles made from carbon fiber composites. Special emphasis is given to the EV Everywhere Grand Challenge which is designed to accelerate the development of advanced batteries and advanced technologies for vehicle charging from the electric grid.
The DOE’s Solar Energy Technologies program is focusing on innovations in manufacturing to reduce manufacturing costs and improve the competitiveness of U.S. industries on the global market. The program will also tackle the soft costs (permitting, installation, maintenance) of solar installations.
The DOE has introduced a new initiative, HydroNEXT, as part of its Water Power Technologies program. HydroNEXT aims to double the current contribution of hydropower in the United States by increasing generation at existing water resource structures and by improving the performance of existing technologies.
Fred Sissine, Specialist in Energy Policy, Congressional Research Service, noted that the Department of Energy's main goals are to reduce oil imports 50 percent by 2020 and to lead the world in clean energy technologies. To accomplish these goals, the DOE aims to:
- Double renewable energy production by 2020.
- Double energy productivity by 2030.
- Make non-residential buildings 20 percent more efficient by 2020.
- Ensure clean energy constitutes 80 percent of power generation by 2035.
- Cut greenhouse gases 17 percent below 2005 level by 2020.
Transitioning to a clean energy economy is deemed important for three main reasons:
1. Improving international competitiveness and creating jobs in new industries
2. Reducing carbon emissions to mitigate climate change
3. Reducing oil imports
Sissine proceeded to highlight the key funding differences between the FY2015 proposed budget and the enacted FY2014 appropriations in three key areas:
1. Sustainable transportation spending would be up $90 million / 15 percent, including a 24 percent increase for vehicles.
2. Renewable electricity generation would be up $72 million / 16 percent, with the largest increase for wind (up 40 percent) and geothermal (up 34 percent).
3. Energy efficiency would be up $241 million / 39 percent, with the largest increase for manufacturing (up 60 percent).
Sissine focused first on the Manufacturing Program, which would receive the largest budget increase, relative to 2014. Its goal is to make manufacturing more efficient through the use of advanced materials and processes. Advanced Manufacturing R&D Facilities would receive an extra 134 percent in funding (up $109 million). These facilities bring together government, industry, and academia, and are meant to be financially sustainable within five to seven years. A new Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institute would study nanomaterials for energy, next generation electric machines, bio-manufacturing, and smart manufacturing.
The vehicles program seeks to make plug-in electric vehicles as affordable and convenient as gasoline-powered ones by 2022, in part by cutting battery production costs by 88 percent. The EV Grand Challenge initiative would, therefore, receive an additional $69 million (up 24 percent).
The buildings program's goal is for new buildings to use 50 percent less energy by 2030. R&D on sensors, controls, grid integration, and new air conditioning technologies would increase by 41 percent.
In the renewable energy budget request, the wind program seeks to cut the costs of wind power, and to increase installed windfarm capacity from 60 gigawatts (GW) in 2012 to 300 GW by 2030. The solar program seeks to reduce the energy cost of utility-scale photovoltaic plants to 6 cents/kilowatt-hour, a 75 percent drop, by 2020. And, the bioenergy program seeks to make drop-in biofuels at $3 per gallon of gasoline equivalent a reality by 2017 (the demonstration and deployment of pilot- and demonstration-scale biorefinery projects would receive an extra 62 percent in funding). This is part of a collaboration with the Departments of Defense and Agriculture.
In conclusion, Sissine noted that between 1948 and 2012, nuclear power represented the lion's share of Department of Energy spending (at 49 percent). Fossil fuels received 25 percent of the budget over those 64 years, followed by renewables (12 percent), efficiency (10 percent) and electricity (4 percent). The proposed 2015 budget would allocate 25 percent to efficiency, 25 percent to renewables, 22 percent to nuclear, 12 percent to fossil fuels and 11 percent to fusion.
Scott Sklar, President, The Stella Group and Chair, Sustainable Energy Coalition Steering Committee, noted that Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimated renewable energy investments to have been worth $254 billion worldwide in 2013. In the United States, total investments in clean energy reached $44.2 billion in 2012, and renewables represented the largest single source of new capacity growth.
Solar energy jobs alone are expected to increase by 15.6 percent in 2014, after a 19.9 percent increase in 2013.
Sklar emphasized that energy efficiency remains the most cost-effective energy source, on a levelized cost basis. Wind energy is now competitive with natural gas.
Sklar proceeded to suggest ways in which the Department of Energy could improve its programs. In particular, he encouraged it to collaborate more with industry, as is the case in the advanced manufacturing program, which he held up as a model. He said laboratories should be more willing to share information and collaborate with other researchers. Sklar insisted that DOE needs to better integrate small businesses in its programs, as most innovation stems from small companies. Finally, he called on DOE to better blend technology solutions, and not to divide them into specialized silos.

Issue Brief

2015 Budget Issue Brief

Original briefing notice

For more information, contact Amaury Laporte at alaporte [at] eesi.org or (202) 662-1884.
Please click here to subscribe to our e-mail list for event notices or newsletters.
We will not sell, trade, or share your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Electric Transmission 201

amaury_laporte — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:29:25 +0000

Speakers (l-r): Laura Manz, Judy Chang, Jeff Dennis, Kevin Reeves, Jack Halpern, and Dan Belin.

Video Recording
Audio Recording
Presentations
Highlights

Audio Recording

Audio recording of briefing and Q&A (mp3)

Wednesday, March 26, 2014——The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) and WIRES held a briefing on the modernization of the nation’s critical network of high-voltage transmission. Designed and built well before the digital age to serve more localized customer loads, the “grid” is struggling to support active and increasingly competitive wholesale power markets that now operate regionally. It is often congested or inadequate to deliver domestic energy resources that are not close to customers. Its aging facilities have acknowledged weather and cyber vulnerabilities. Moreover, the planning and regulation of this fundamental infrastructure is complex, often uncoordinated, and slow to produce results. However, despite the combined effects of the recession and greater energy efficiency, the grid will be called upon to serve 30 percent more electrical demand over the next two decades.

Modern transmission is the fundamental enabler of competition, new technologies, and our high standard of living. Upgrading and expanding the system is a priority. Transmission 201 provided a basic understanding of how the high-voltage system works and then moved to key issues affecting the grid: economic regulation; actual siting and permitting of the facilities; the regional markets that transmission supports; and the range of diverse economic, environmental, and operational benefits that transmission provides to the whole electric system and electricity consumers.

Speakers for this forum were:

Laura Manz, Executive Consultant, Smart Wire Grid

View Laura Manz's presentation (video) Download Laura Manz's slides

Judy Chang, Principal, The Brattle Group

View Judy Chang's presentation (video) Download Judy Chang's slides

Jeff Dennis, Director of Policy Development at the Office of Energy Policy & Innovation, FERC

View Jeff Dennis's presentation (video) Download Jeff Dennis's slides

Kevin Reeves, Managing Director Energy Trading & Marketing, American Electric Power

View Kevin Reeves's presentation (video) Download Kevin Reeves's slides

Jack Halpern, Power Sector Leader for Environmental Services, Stantec

View Jack Halpern's presentation (video) Download Jack Halpern's slides

Dan Belin, Director of Electric Transmission, Ecology & Environment Inc.

View Dan Belin's presentation (video) Download Dan Belin's slides

Moderator: James Hoecker, former FERC Chairman; WIRES Counsel, Husch Blackwell LLP

View Jim Hoecker's presentation (video) Download Jim Hoecker's slides

	View Question & Answer session (video)
	Download Full Slideshow

Highlights

Laura Manz, Executive Consultant for Smart Wire Grid, gave an introduction to the grid. She explained that voltage is like pressure in a garden hose and that current is the movement of electrical charge. Voltage and current together give you power (the rate at which electricity does work). Energy is the amount of work that electricity can do. Our grid is a 60-hertz, alternating current technology.
Manz described how the grid can be broken into four components: generation, transmission, distribution, and customers, which are all connected. Generation is fueled by coal, nuclear, wind, gas, biomass, etc. Distribution is the smaller wires on posts down our streets which serve homes and other loads.
Manz explained that FERC regulates the bulk transmission wires, often between states or across regions. Its authority ends as distribution becomes local or small, or arrives to an end-user, which is when local government steps in to regulate.
Balancing authorities, system operators, and independent system operators are all terms of art that describe organizations which are like air traffic controllers, moving power through their regions and out into other regions. Manz said the grid is the world’s biggest machine. Direct current (DC) transmission acts like a direct fast track to transmit current quickly. Alternating current (AC) has to go through more places along the way. There is not a lot of DC in the US.
The United States is interconnected in three regions: Eastern, Western and ERCOT (which is most of Texas). These each operate as their own "machines." Western and Eastern are not tightly tied, and ERCOT is not tied to anything.
Manz explained that some forms of renewable power make supply less reliable, because wind and solar generate power based on environmental circumstances; e.g., wind turbines generate electricity when wind blows, solar panels generate electricity when the sun shines. On the grid, supply has to match demand exactly. Less reliable supply has led to innovations like microgrids and smart grids.
Manz concluded by noting that the transmission system has limitations, including thermal limits (too much current will overheat lines) and stability issues (the grid can have large swings in demand). The grid also needs to make allowances for contingencies.
Judy Chang, Principal, Brattle Group, covered the investment trend in the transmission network, and the benefits of transmission. She said the largest investments in the grid occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. Recently, annual investments have been about $7 to $16 billion, which is quite low compared to historic levels. We’re at the beginning of a wave to replace these now aging investments.
Chang said there is a growing trend of investment in transmission, which is being strongly driven by the need to handle growing renewable energy power generation; the need to replace and upgrade aging facilities; and Regional Transmission Operator (RTO) planning cycles, which are causing waves of new project approvals. She explained that investment is moderately driven by the need to address load growth and increase reliability; by regulation, especially recent FERC orders and state policies incentivizing investment; and by the need to increase transmission between regions. Load growth rate has decreased due to energy efficiency measures, but growth does continue.
Chang then broke down the benefits of investment in transmission, from a policy perspective. One benefit of transmission investments are production cost savings, which is the idea that creating a wider transmission network will allow greater competition between energy resources, creating cost savings for customers. Other benefits include increased reliability; generation capacity cost savings; the creation of local jobs; economic stimulation; and project-specific benefits, such as increasing the resiliency of a grid so that it stays up during storms.
Jeff Dennis, Director of the Division of Policy Development at the Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), discussed the role of regulation, especially federal regulation, for the grid. FERC regulates under the authority of the Federal Power Act, covering wholesale electricity sales in interstate commerce, interstate electricity transmission, as well as some siting, hydro plant permitting and grid reliability efforts. States regulate retail sales to end users, low-voltage distribution, power plant siting, and resource planning for utilities.
Dennis explained that regulations are intended to ensure the reliability of the grid system, and ensure that the transmission system facilitates competition. The transmission grid is owned by hundreds of discrete entities, two-thirds of which are investor-owned utilities, and one-third of which are public entities. The type of owner affects what regulation is applied; public entities are generally less regulated.
Dennis stated that under the Federal Power Act, section 5, FERC regulates interstate transmission rates, terms and conditions of service for public utilities. FERC judges rates by whether they are “just and reasonable.” To determine this, it examines the cost of establishing the service: expenses to operate and maintain the asset, return on equity (how much they are allowed to earn, i.e. what they need in order to attract investors), and return on investment. The “return on equity” part of the equation is complicated and important, and there is no single right answer.
FERC requires “open access” to jurisdictional transmission facilities, in order to promote competition. FERC has rules that don’t allow discriminatory access to transmission lines, so utilities that own transmission lines can’t favor their own generation sources.
Dennis discussed Regional Transmission Operators (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs), which are voluntary, subject to FERC jurisdiction, and ensure independent operation of the grid. The grid used to be largely operated by vertically-operated investor-utilities that controlled access. ISOs and RTOs were introduced to break down the wall of vertical ownership, so that grids can be operated by third parties who aren’t invested in the market, in order to facilitate competition. RTOs and ISOs now operate two-thirds of the grid. The utilities still own the grid, but they turn the control of planning and operations over to the RTO or the ISO. The entities also began to operate markets, and take bids from generators in order to ensure that the most economic resources are used to respond to demand.
Dennis concluded by saying that as the grid has grown, state and federal regulatory issues have become more complicated.
Kevin Reeves, Managing Director, American Electric Power, explained that RTOs and ISOs were created by FERC orders 2000 and 888, to facilitate competition among wholesale suppliers, ensure non-discriminatory access to transmission, manage the interconnection of new sources, provide transparency, and plan grid operations to ensure reliability.
Reeves explained that there are three interconnections (Eastern, Western and ERCOT) and eight North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) regions. NERC regions are charged with maintaining reliability, not managing markets. NERC regions predate RTOs, and NERC is mandatory, while RTOs are voluntary. Many parts of the country do not belong to RTOs, and so it's clear that in many places, the benefits of a RTO are not perceived to be worth the costs. RTOs and ISOs do not follow a standard design, and generally provide a central clearing house for transactions. FERC provides incentives to join.
Reeves explained that key drivers of new transmission are the development of renewable energy resources, coal generation retirements, and new customer interconnections.
Reeves described the Energy Power Act of 2005, wherein FERC was given authority to protect the existing grid, but not to order additions. Potential projects are submitted to RTOs/ISOs for modeling, and if data showed the project would be beneficial, it is approved. Approved projects are eligible for cost recovery. Cost recovery is determined by FERC in accordance with transmission rates. Cost allocation is determined by load in zone, and cost is socialized across all rate-payers. Each RTO approaches cost allocation in a different way. Regional planning and cost allocation are expanding beyond RTOs following the issuance of FERC Order 1000.
Jack Halpern, Power Sector Leader for Environmental Services at Stantec, began by saying site selection is not a science, it’s an art. One must take into account ecological impacts, local population, etc. This is becoming more important as renewable energy enters the equation, and must often be transmitted from far away. During siting evaluations, there is a need to examine places where installing transmission lines could be made easier by piggybacking on currently existing infrastructure, or by updating aging infrastructure.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) can be involved if the line crosses federally-protected lands. Involving NEPA can extend a project’s timeline by around three years (from an average of five years to completion to an average of eight), as environmental impact studies are required. Access roads become a major consideration when building new transmission in untouched areas.
Coal plant closure is necessitating the retooling of transmission, as coal, which was burned in urban areas, is replaced by more rural renewable energy generation further away.
Halpern explained that preferences for siting (in order of preference from most desirable to least) is to update an existing line, parallel an existing line, parallel a road, railroad or pipeline, or finally, if necessary, to put down transmission where there are no existing lines. Nevertheless, paralleling something that already exists is not a panacea.
Eminent domain is a lengthy process, and often requires the state's approval. Some states do not allow eminent domain.
Dan Belin, Director for Electric Transmission at Ecology & Environment, discussed regulatory authority in terms of recent trends and developments. One of the evolving challenges to developing new resources is the lack of a federal standard. Pipelines, in contrast, have a federal standard, which streamlines their permitting process. At the federal level, authority is piecemeal. If a project crosses federal lands, it comes under the authority of the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or the National Park Service. If one requires a loan guarantee, it comes under the authority of the Department of Energy or the Department of Agriculture. Seventy-five percent of states have siting boards and utility commissions. This makes development more difficult.
Belin explained that the lack of regulatory certainty is a key challenge.
Jim Hoecker, Counsel to WIRES at Husch Blackwell LLP and former FERC Chairman, concluded that national policymakers need to understand the ramifications of what they are talking about when they design policy for the grid.
The grid does not reach a lot of new energy resources like wind or natural gas, though it will increasingly need to. We, therefore, need to invest more heavily in the grid over the next 20-25 years.
Hoecker said Electric transmission is probably the most important thing that you never think about. As the economy and electric grid changes, transmission is necessary. People are often concerned about increased rates due to new transmission projects, but the reality is that transmission is an economic benefit, with long-term positive impacts.

This briefing was the tenth in a series co-sponsored by EESI and WIRES.

Original briefing notice

American Scientific Community Unveils Climate Change Report

amaury_laporte — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 23:36:25 +0000

Scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have come together to launch a new initiative on the need to act on climate change, before it is too late. The “What We Know” initiative began with the release of a report, entitled What We Know: The Reality, Risks, and Response to Climate Change. The report and initiative were both unveiled on March 18 with the goal of providing Americans with the scientific facts concerning climate change, in order to mitigate the confusion brought on by climate deniers.

The report was spearheaded by Dr. Mario Molina of the University of California, San Diego, who shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and their ability to break down the ozone layer, as well as Dr. Diana Wall of Colorado State University and Dr. James McCarthy of Harvard University. They, along with ten other scientists, plan to educate the American people on climate through speaking tours, testimonials, their website, and other means in order to show the scientific consensus on climate change and the potential disastrous impacts if nothing is done.

The report avoids providing any direct policy guidance and instead focuses on illuminating the key messages that they hope will sway Americans in understanding that human-caused climate change is real. In particular, they emphasize what could happen if nothing is done, including the greater potential for food shortages, sea level rise, heat waves and droughts, floods, other extreme weather, and large-scale extinctions.

According to the scientists who wrote the report, “we consider it our responsibility as professionals to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people understand the climate realities we face . . . armed with scientific understanding about the gravity of certain environmental problems, our nation has successfully used innovative approaches to address these challenges.” The hope is that this report will facilitate “scientists and economists to work together, ask tough questions, and break the boundaries of their professional silos.”

Author: Jenifer Collins

Resources:

"What We Know" AAAS Report
AAAS News Release
"What We Know" AAAS Website
"Scientists Sound Alarm on Climate," New York Times
"Climate change is putting world at risk of irreversible changes, scientists warn," The Guardian

Senators Hold All-Night Climate Change Talkathon

amaury_laporte — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:28:16 +0000

Senator Ed Markey (Mass.) reads excerpts from The Lorax
during the climate talkathon (Courtesy: C-Span).On Monday night, March 10, the recently formed Senate Climate Action Task Force put on its first event, an all-night talkathon to “wake up Congress” to the need to address the severe impacts of climate change. During the night, 31 Senators (28 Democrats, 2 Independents and 1 Republican) spoke for more than 14 hours, discussing science, policy, impacts and solutions to climate change. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), a moderate Republican, labeled the talkathon a “partisan exercise,” and lamented that she had been unable to participate – this was a missed opportunity. While this event was a start, meaningful conversations on climate policy won’t happen until we can somehow make the debate more relevant to a wider portion of the political spectrum.

The event was not a filibuster, since it pertained to no specific legislation. The Senators involved are drumming up support for future bills, as well as drawing the media and the public’s attention to the issue of climate change. Last year, Sunday political talk shows spent a mere 27 minutes discussing climate change.

Several members of EESI staff were in the Capitol observing the floor action from the Senate Gallery. We particularly enjoyed Senator Ed Markey’s (D-MA) comparison of climate change to steroid use in baseball. Comparing graphs of home run averages to average global temperature, he said there is an “obvious correlation” between temperature increases and humans “injecting pollutants” into the atmosphere. Senator Barbara Boxer made a forceful and passionate argument that we should not delegate the world’s climate leadership to China.

Full list of participating Senators:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Sen. Angus King (I-ME), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sen. Patty Murphy (D-WA), Sen. Charles Shumer (D-NY), and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the only Republican who participated.

Author: Laura Small

Urban Agriculture: Creating Healthy, Sustainable Communities in D.C.

amaury_laporte — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:40:29 +0000

First Lady Michelle Obama and children from several local elementary schools
in the White House Organic Farm (credit: Chuck Kennedy / White House)When one thinks of agriculture and creating more sustainable food systems, Washington D.C does not necessarily come to mind. However, the urban agriculture movement has taken root here and is now blossoming into a network of urban farms across metropolitan D.C., helping to combat climate change and create a more sustainable city.

From farm, to plate, to landfill, the production and transportation of food results in the release of harmful greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2) and are the drivers of climate change.

In 2012, food-related GHG emissions accounted for 21 percent of total U.S. emissions. This does not even include emissions related to food preparation at home, such as driving to the store, refrigeration, cooking, and other food-related activities that result in greenhouse gas emissions. Small-scale, urban agriculture can reduce transportation- and production-related emissions. Additionally, small-scale agriculture diversifies the U.S. food supply. As a recent drought in California, one of the United States' top food-producing regions has demonstrated, a diversified food supply may become increasingly important as we adjust to the uncertainties presented by climate change.

Approximately 80 percent of Americans live in cities and the potential positive impacts of urban farming are huge. Not only does urban agriculture reduce food-related GHG emissions, it also provides nutritious, low-cost fruits, vegetables, and herbs in many urban areas that have little access to affordable, nutritious produce. These local projects can have tremendous benefits for low-income communities that often pay anywhere from 30 to 60 percent of their income on food. Researchers from the CFSC Urban Agriculture Committee have found that every $1 investment in a community garden nets $6 worth of produce, a phenomenal return on investment. Here are just a few examples of successful agricultural projects within the metro D.C. area that are reducing GHG emissions, providing accessible produce, building communities, and improving health.

City Blossoms is a non-profit organization that encourages children and young people to create and manage green spaces. The organization started nine years ago as a volunteer project, but is now a fully-functioning, year-round organization that teaches children how to care for the environment; express themselves artistically; and grow healthy, organic food.
While some organizations and community farms are aimed at teaching children, others target low-income community members, in order to help them meet their nutritional needs. Since 2007, the Common Good City Farm has been providing training in a variety of areas—from food production to environmental sustainability—in order to help low-income D.C. residents gain access to healthy food with their community garden projects and workshops.
The Neighborhood Farm Initiative is a D.C.-based non-profit that was created to transform underutilized city spaces into functional gardens for Metropolitan D.C. residents. The community garden plots are used not only to grow fresh vegetables for the community, but also used to educate residents on gardening techniques.
And of course, one cannot forget one of the most famous gardens in D.C.—the White House Organic (WHO) Farm. The WhoFarm was created in 2010 in response to a nation-wide petition drive and is part of First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! Campaign.

Author: Jenifer Collins

Resources:

"Capital City Farming: 10 Urban Agriculture Projects in Washington, DC," Food Tank
"How Urban Farming Can Transform Our Cities — And Our Agricultural System," Climate Progress
Obama Foodorama blog (official site of record for White House food initiatives)

Senators to Pull All-Nighter for Climate Change

amaury_laporte — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:45:24 +0000

Senator Schatz joins the Senate Climate Action Task ForceThe Senate's Climate Action Task Force will hold an all-night call to action on Monday, March 10, urging Congress to address climate change. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who unveiled the plan and co-chairs the task force alongside Sen. Barbara Boxer, explained that the talkathon's purpose is "to break the pattern of the Senate and show the interest of at least 20 senators who will be participating through the night." Currently, 28 Senators are participating, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Individuals can show their support by signing this petition:

http://wakeuptoclimatechange.com

The Climate Action Task Force, launched on January 14, is not attempting to advance specific legislation, but is instead focusing on changing the dynamics of the climate change debate on the Hill. Nevertheless, its long-term goal is to spur Congress into passing laws that address climate change, both its causes (fossil fuel emissions) and effects (more frequent extreme weather). Senator Whitehouse insisted, "I'm a climate hawk, and I'm very confident that we can win, and I'm very confident that we can win sooner than people think."

Senator Whitehouse has been making floor speeches in favor of climate change action every week since April 2012. He's hoping the all-night climate talkathon will give a new impetus to the issue, and help muster public support and media attention.

In addition to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, 27 other Senators will be participating in the all-nighter, which was primarily organized by Senator Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii. The full list of participants is: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Ben Cardin, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken, Kirsten Gillibrand, Martin Heinrich, Tim Kaine, Angus King, Amy Klobuchar, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, Chris Murphy, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Bernie Sanders, Brian Schatz, Charles Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Elizabeth Warren, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Ron Wyden.